Building Green: A New PathVOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, WINTER 2005-06 PDF
Version

Coastal Heritage
is a quarterly publication of the S.C. Sea Grant Consortium—a university-based
network supporting research, education, and outreach to conserve coastal
resources and enhance economic opportunity for the people of South Carolina. To subscribe, email your name and address to Annette Dunmeyer.

A new era of green design and construction has arrived on South Carolina campuses.

They’re
handsome in a traditional, modest, almost bland way. Nothing flashy.
The four blond-brick, Georgian-style buildings weren’t designed to turn
heads or make grand aesthetic statements. Instead, they blend in
quietly with older structures on the University of South Carolina (USC)
campus.

Look
closer, though, and you’ll find plenty of surprises and innovations at
West Quad, a 172,000-square-foot, $30.9 million residence-hall complex
that opened in November 2004. The complex reflects a green revolution
sweeping South Carolina’s higher-education institutions, transforming
how academic buildings are designed and constructed.

On
a West Quad rooftop, solar-power tubes provide hot water for residents.
Above the “living-and-learning center,” a fuel cell generates backup
power, and a turf roof absorbs summer heat and cools rooms inside.

Building
materials include low- or no-volatile organic compound (VOC) paint,
carpet, adhesives, and laminates. Motion sensors detect whenever anyone
enters and exits a room, turning lights on and off accordingly. Rooms
are filled with daylight, though without distracting glare, and they
have continuous flow of fresh air and operable windows.

“They
are some of the healthiest buildings in the state,” says Michael Koman,
environmental program manager with the USC Housing Department.

The
greening of academia has arrived at an opportune time as energy bills
rise. Colleges and universities are recognizing the benefits of
designing and constructing high-performance buildings, which reduce
operating and maintenance costs, minimize impacts on the environment,
provide healthier and more productive places to study and work, and
offer learning opportunities for students.

Studies
show that certain indoor environments can suppress student learning and
worker productivity far more than previously realized. When people work
or study in uncomfortable, artificially lit spaces, their concentration
suffers.

Building
green is also a cost-effective way for academic institutions to
highlight their educational mission and build leadership in technical
innovation.

But
aren’t colleges and universities considered small beer in the building
industry? Not anymore. An academic construction boom
nationwide—totaling $13.7 billion in 2004—is helping to bring
environmentally conscious building into the mainstream.

Government—federal,
state, and local—is the largest driving force behind sustainable design
nationally. But, in South Carolina, higher education is the pacesetter.
Consortium member institutions USC and Clemson University are two of
the leading competitors for the title of the most active builder of
high-performance structures in South Carolina.

“The
rivalry between USC and Clemson has something to do with it,” says
Trish Jerman, program manager of the Sustainable Universities
Initiative, a partnership among several higher-education institutions
in the state.

Furman
University was the first to build a green institutional building in the
state. Consortium members Coastal Carolina University, College of
Charleston, and Medical University of South Carolina, plus Francis
Marion University, Piedmont Tech, Winthrop University, and York Tech
have all built or are planning sustainable buildings.

When
baby boomers flocked to campuses in the 1960s and 1970s, universities
built labs and dorms to accommodate them. By the 1980s, enrollment
nationwide had flattened. Now, enrollment is rising again as the
boomers’ children reach college age, although in inflation-adjusted
terms college costs are roughly three times higher than during the
1970s.

Universities
are renovating older dorms, classrooms, and laboratories, or building
new ones, while also addressing new requirements for information
technology. It’s often less expensive to build a new building than
retrofit an out-dated structure.

Gerald
Vander Mey, campus master planner for Clemson, says, “It became evident
to the university that constructing high-performance buildings was a
smart thing to do. A high-performance building will pay for itself many
times over compared to standard construction. It also made sense from
the perspective of the health and well-being of the people who would
work in these buildings.”

Academic
institutions face a bottom-line squeeze as they aim to please a new
kind of demanding consumer—the student or parent paying tuition bills.

The
higher-education marketplace has become ruthlessly competitive. The
U.S. News & World Report annual ranking of every college and
university in the country gives administrators heartburn. State
financial support is down. Colleges and universities must market their
finest qualities—known as branding in advertising jargon—to recruit the
best students who often look for institutions with up-to-date
facilities.

Student
expectations have changed since the lava-lamp era. Today’s typical
undergraduate doesn’t want a traditional dorm, sharing a bathroom with
40 other students.

“It’s
a different generation—they want more privacy, more space, and more
convenience,” says Alan Hargrave, director of housing and residence
life at Ball State University, and president of the Association of
College and University Housing Officers-International.

According
to a recent survey by College Planning & Management magazine, 90
percent of college-housing officers said that new residence halls will
offer apartments or shared suites.

Young
people today are likelier to have special health needs than their
parents did. Says Hargrave, “One of the primary reasons for creating
healthier buildings is that more and more students have asthma and
breathing difficulties.”

Since
the green-building movement got rolling in the mid-1990s, skeptics have
asked some basic questions. What exactly is a sustainable building?
Does green construction cost more upfront? How much more? Is going
green really worth the trouble and the savings down the road?

Until recently it was hard to prove that a building was very green. Or mostly green. Or somewhat green.

So
the U.S. Green Building Council, established in 1993, set to work on a
comprehensive standard for sustainable design and development. The
council is a group of corporations, builders, government agencies,
universities, and nonprofit organizations that promote environmentally
responsible building.

In
2000, the council rolled out the LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System for commercial and
institutional buildings. Third-party analysts use LEED guidelines to
rate how a building performs in environmental terms.

LEED
ratings are based on a points system. Points are given for
sustainable-site development, water savings, energy efficiency,
materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.

If
a building wins 26 of 69 available points, it is awarded LEED
certification. Building owners can also shoot for higher ratings beyond
certification—silver, gold, and platinum.

More
than 2,160 buildings nationwide are registered in the program, meaning
that owners intend to seek certification. So far, 266 have been
certified. The program has gone international, as well. More than 100
projects are registered outside the United States.

“LEED is the best catalyst for green building,” says Alexis Karolides,
an architect with the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit
organization promoting sustainable development, based in Snowmass,
Colorado.

USC’s
West Quad has received a silver LEED rating. And Clemson University
earned silver for its new Advanced Materials Research Center. Clemson
has committed to gaining certification for all new buildings and major
renovations.

Creating
high-performance buildings, administrators say, is definitely worth the
planning effort. Planning, design, and construction costs for West Quad
were $2 less per square foot, after accounting for inflation, than the
conventional dorm complex of a similar size called East Quad across the
street.

The
West Quad complex saves $60,000 to $80,000 per year from
energy-and-water bills. Savings will grow because West Quad was built
with high-quality materials and therefore should have lower maintenance
costs, says Koman.

To
gain certification, planners can’t just squeeze disparate, unrelated
green features into a construction budget. Instead, the building should
be created as a single integrated system. “The process by which you
green a building is just as important as the (sustainable) features you
put in it,” Karolides says.

The
U.S. building industry has long been criticized for its lack of
whole-systems thinking—for its lack of collaboration among various
trades and professionals, its piecemeal approach to design and
construction, and its overriding goal of controlling costs upfront.
Especially during boom periods of construction, many developers and
builders jump from one project to the next, making profits in a
brutally competitive marketplace by working as inexpensively as
possible while complying with minimum codes and standards.

Focusing
on the “first cost” or upfront expenses of a project is standard
operating procedure in the building industry. As a result, various
building trades and disciplines do not work in concert as much as they
should, according to Michael K. Mantai, an engineer and president of
System Worcx, a building commissioning service.

Think
of the people who work on a large commercial or institutional building:
owner, developer, architect, structural engineer, general contractor,
electrical engineer, electrical contractor, mechanical engineer,
mechanical contractor, plumbing and fire-protection and voice-data
system and security-system contractors, plus dozens of subcontractors
for flooring, drywall, and on and on.

“Who
coordinates all of the pieces?” asked Mantai. “There are so many gaps
between the disciplines. Buildings get built, and they’re
dysfunctional.”

Some
owners discover that their completed structures require 35 percent more
energy to heat and cool than original designs had called for, says
Mantai.

That’s
why the LEED process emphasizes careful planning at the front end of a
project. A project team, which meets frequently throughout the design
and construction process, asks a series of questions. Who will use the
structure? What are the most important needs of the occupants? How can
the different parts of the project be integrated to save energy and
other resources?

Energy
conservation is at the heart of the LEED system. Almost half of the
points needed for certification can be gained by using energy-saving
techniques. But a project team can also focus on issues such as
indoor-air quality and water conservation, among others.

To
save energy, a project team will likely choose high-efficiency windows
and light fixtures, eliminate leaks by improving wall and roof
insulation, and provide features that allow in more natural light,
thereby reducing unnecessary heat from overhead artificial lighting.

These
features should allow a green building to have a far smaller heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system than that of a
conventional building.

Alex
Wilson, executive editor of Environmental Building News, a newsletter
based in Brattleboro, Vermont, points out that green buildings commonly
use less than half as much energy as conventional ones, and some use
less than one-fourth as much.

MARKETING GREEN

Considering
its brief history, the LEED program has become remarkably
influential—it is the most widely used tool to encourage green design
and certify the environmental performance of buildings, landscaping,
and their relationships to the surrounding communities. Last year, the
program got a boost in South Carolina with the creation of a U.S. Green
Building Council state chapter.

LEED
is so successful because it reflects a coalition of interests including
builders, developers, and environmentalists, says Daniel Abel, director
of Coastal Carolina University’s Center for Campus and Community
Sustainability. “It’s a consensus standard that is practical.”

Commercial
green buildings have been created outside of LEED, though its
certification is the most recognized and respected seal of quality,
somewhat like a top review for a car in Consumer Reports magazine.

Rising
energy costs are driving enthusiasm in green design and construction.
There are 76 million residential buildings and nearly five million
commercial and institutional buildings in the United States, consuming
37 percent of the nation’s energy use and 68 percent of its
electricity.

“We’re
looking at an escalating energy-cost environment,” says Art Titus,
vice-president of operations for Noisette Co., which is redeveloping
350 acres of a former navy base in North Charleston. All commercial
buildings, including high-rise residential structures, will be
LEED-certified in the Noisette project. “More than anything else, the
LEED standard is about energy efficiency.”

Many
Americans have become concerned about indoor-air problems linked to
chemicals found in some building materials, carpets, and furniture,
particularly VOCs. Such chemicals have been blamed for asthma and other
respiratory problems.

Vander
Mey of Clemson University says that many conventional structures,
especially large ones, are rife with problems that annoy and distract
occupants. “There are more than 1,000 faculty and staff on campus, and
you wouldn’t believe how many ‘hot and cold calls’ there are. ‘My
office is too hot,’ or ‘My office is too cold,’ or ‘I can’t open a
window.’” Faculty and staff have shown great enthusiasm, Vander Mey
says, for the university’s commitment to the LEED process.

LEED
appeals to Americans’ competitive urges, according to Robert Cassidy,
editor-in-chief of Building Design & Construction. In a November
2003 report, Cassidy writes, “It takes a complex, multi-faceted
problem—sustainable design and development—and turns it into a game,
with clearly established rules.” Cassidy admires “its simplicity, its
competitive structure, its ability to provide a branded metric.”

Government
agencies are building about half of the LEED-registered structures in
the country. Institutions such as colleges and universities,
foundations, schools, and environmental organizations comprise another
large fraction.

More
than 30 localities—including Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and
Seattle—have adopted laws requiring all public agencies to adhere to
LEED standards. Portland, Oregon, and Scottsdale, Arizona, require
LEED’s second-highest certification standard—gold—for all new city
facilities. In

April
2005, Washington became the first state to require use of LEED for
state-funded projects larger than 5,000-square feet and for major
renovations. The General Services Administration, which manages all
non-defense federal buildings, requires that new projects must gain
LEED certification.

CHALLENGES TO GREEN

It’s
a brick, two-story Arts & Crafts-style building located not far
from downtown Columbia. From the outside, it resembles a large
single-family home, though it’s the headquarters of Cox and Dinkins, an
engineering-and-surveying firm, and the first LEED-certified commercial
structure in the state. With four miles of data and voice lines, “it’s
a high-tech building,” says Gene Dinkins, president of Cox and Dinkins,
“with a down-home feel.”

Although
Dinkins is obviously proud of his new office, he found the LEED process
time-consuming and often exasperating. Building owners must gather
piles of receipts proving that they followed certification
requirements. “The documentation and follow-up are voluminous,” says
Dinkins, adding that few private companies have staff time to devote to
the process.

Even
so, Ted Chalgren, director of business development at Cox and Dinkins,
says building a LEED-certified structure was worth the effort. “It has
been an absolute bonanza for us in terms of marketing. Having this
building gives us a credential we wouldn’t ordinarily have.”

There
are 28 certified or registered LEED projects in South Carolina. Ten are
commercial; academic institutions and local school systems own 14
projects; government or nonprofits own four.

Which
businesses are likeliest to embrace whole-building principles?
Companies constructing new headquarters or offices can gain direct
health and productivity benefits by building green. By contrast, a
company constructing a warehouse where few workers are located is
probably less likely to consider a whole-building approach for that
particular project, says Karolides of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Relatively
few speculative developers of commercial buildings have embraced
sustainable design; they build structures only to sell them. Even so,
the market for speculative green structures should grow over time. “If
you can certify that a building is green through the LEED process,”
says Karolides, “a developer could promote and sell that.”

There
are countless new tools and products that can be used to save energy in
new buildings, yet many structures continue to be inefficiently
lighted, cooled, heated, and ventilated.

Why?
Some developers are trying to do the right things. They install
energy-saving appliances and high-performance windows. Yet, in many
cases, these efforts don’t make much of an impact.

The
reality is that if green features aren’t carefully integrated, they
probably won’t reduce waste, experts say. Marketing the
“whole-building” concept—that’s LEED’s innovation in the area of
sustainable development.

Whole-building
principles have been embraced by a number of major corporations:
Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nestle, Starbucks, Disney, and Gap. Nationally,
“it’s a good mix” of different kinds of owners embracing
environmentally friendly construction, says Taryn Holowka,
communications manager for the U.S. Green Building Council.

COST SIGNIFICANTLY FAVORS GREEN

Not
long ago, constructing a green building was thought to be exorbitantly
expensive—up to 15 percent more costly than a conventional one. But
that notion is outdated. Building green costs about the same as
conventional construction if careful planning is done early, according
to academic administrators in South Carolina who have managed LEED
projects.

An
October 2003 report commissioned by the Sustainable Building Task
Force, representing more than 40 California government agencies, found
that a green building (LEED-registered) requires spending two percent
more money up front than a conventional one. A two-percent premium on a
sizable building can mean at least tens of thousands of dollars in
first cost. Yet the report noted that over the 20-year life of a
building, green features will pay back the original investment more
than 10 times.

Once
long-term upkeep is factored in, a green building actually costs less
than a conventional structure. Environmentally friendly buildings have
lower operating costs for energy, water, waste disposal, operations,
and maintenance, as well as savings from increased productivity and
health among occupants.

“The
operations and maintenance of a building far outweigh the capital costs
of a project,” agrees Vander Mey of Clemson. “A project that costs $10
million during construction could cost far more than $10 million over
50 years on operations and maintenance. Anything you can do to save on
operations and maintenance will pay back many, many times.”

Some
green buildings can offer even greater reductions in energy bills than
their owners anticipated. At USC’s West Quad dorms, students will be
able to examine their energy use via three interactive touch screen
displays located in the lobby. They can also access this information on
the Web. Students who use less energy than the student average are
eligible for award money of $100 to $150. Each room in the building has
its own thermostat, so students can save on cooling and heating.

West
Quad was designed to be 55 percent more efficient in electricity use
than conventional structures of the same size. But because students
have made extra effort to save energy, West Quad functions 66 percent
more efficiently in electricity use.

Now,
the building industry nationwide should learn from green innovations of
academia and government, says Chalgren of Cox and Dinkins. Building
green can often mean spending more upfront, but saving a lot of money
down the road. “Everybody’s still looking at first cost of a building,”
says Chalgren. “That’s looking at the wrong thing. We’ve got to
transform the thinking of the marketplace.”

_______
Sidebar:

Incentives Needed for Good Design

South
Carolina should have government incentives to build green commercial
buildings, says Gene Dinkins, president of Cox and Dinkins, whose
surveying-and-engineering firm constructed the first LEED-certified
commercial building in the state.

New
York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Oregon are among states that offer
significant green-building tax credits, but South Carolina does not.

Soon
a new federal energy bill, signed into law by President Bush, will
provide a tax credit of up to $1.80 per square foot for commercial and
institutional buildings that exceed an industry standard of energy
efficiency for heating-ventilating-air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. The
new credit went into effect Jan. 1, 2006.

South
Carolina’s statewide building code requires that all commercial
structures exceed the stringent HVAC standard. As a result, new
commercial and institutional buildings, if they pass inspection, would
be eligible for the tax credit, says Sonny Dubose, project manager for
the S.C. Energy Office.

The
federal energy bill also provides homebuilders with a $2,000 tax credit
for each energy-efficient house constructed, though the complexities of
the bill’s provisions are still being worked out.

Mechanical
and ventilation codes require that outdoor air must be circulated
throughout occupied buildings, helping reduce instances of “sick
building syndrome.”

Pumped-in
fresh air almost always has to be cooled or heated. In a conventional
structure, mechanical and ventilation systems distribute the same
amount of warmed or cooled fresh air whether the building is empty or
full of people. Heating-ventilating-air-conditioning (HVAC) systems
thus are operating when they are not necessary. “That’s where it costs
money for energy consumption,” says Mary Pat Crozier, Furman
University’s capital construction manager.

Furman
installed sophisticated ventilation-management systems, which monitor
building occupancy, so that HVAC equipment can automatically turn on or
off.

In
Herman N. Hipp Hall, a gold-rated LEED building that opened in 2002,
sensors measure carbon-dioxide levels. As people breathe, they exhale
carbon dioxide. Greater numbers of people in an enclosed building
produce more carbon dioxide. When there are higher gas levels, more
fresh air should be pumped in.

Sensors
pick up changing levels of carbon dioxide and send a signal to the
building’s HVAC system, which responds by distributing fresh air. When
more people leave the building, the sensors notice the change, and the
ventilation system distributes less fresh air.

Crozier
estimates that the building’s various green features save the
university $15,000 a year in energy costs. Furman University, with two
more buildings in the LEED pipeline, is aiming for silver rating for
all new and renovated structures ”

_______
Sidebar:

Learn Better With Natural Light

Almost
16 million students in colleges and universities—plus millions more
faculty and staff—are using vast resources as they work, study, and
live in campus buildings, many of which are artificially lit around the
clock. Artificial lighting consumes at least 20 percent of energy costs
in many commercial and institutional buildings. Millions more K-12
students struggle to learn in harshly lit classrooms.

That’s
why some schools are embracing ways to provide more natural lighting in
classrooms and dormitories. Builders are installing skylights called
“light wells,” building “light shelves” on windows, and installing
special film on glass windows, all of which allow in natural light but
reduce heat and glare and electricity costs.

“Daylighting”
strategies, experts say, significantly influence how students learn.
Two studies by the Heschong Mahone Group, a consulting company for
California energy agencies, showed that the degree of daylighting in
schools affects student test scores.

In
a 1999 study, the consultants examined natural lighting’s effects on
learning in the school districts of Seattle, Washington, and Fort
Collins, Colorado. Students in classrooms with the most natural
lighting had 7 percent to 18 percent higher end-of-year scores compared
to students in classrooms with the least daylighting.

But
just allowing in more sunshine isn’t enough. A follow-up study in 2003
by Heschong Mahone compared the performance of third-grade through
sixth-grade students in 500 classrooms in 36 schools in the Fresno
Unified School District in California.

The
study showed that a range of classroom attributes beyond natural
lighting—such as ventilation, indoor air quality, and the acoustic
environment—affects student learning. Researchers came to a provocative
conclusion: that physical conditions in classrooms can predict student
performance as much or more than teacher characteristics, number of
computers, or attendance rates.

Too
much sunlight, though, can be harmful, according to the study of Fresno
schools. Glaring natural light pouring through windows inhibits student
learning, especially in math classes where teachers most often use
chalkboards, and in rooms where teachers don’t have access to blinds or
curtains to control glare. Some students can’t see math problems worked
on blackboards. It’s important, the report noted, that teachers are
able to control the degree of natural lighting in classrooms.

Physical
conditions in offices strongly affect worker productivity, too. In
another 2003 study, also by Heschong Malone, workers in a phone-call
center were shown to be more productive when they had the best possible
view out a window, processing calls six to 12 percent faster than those
with no view.

_______
Sidebar:

Green Residential Market Expanding

The risk-averse homebuilding industry
has started to embrace the growing consumer market for environmentally friendly houses.

Homebuilders
are generally known for their caution and wariness of innovation; they
make a living by using the tried-and-true. But some developers are
turning to green-building techniques, which offer a competitive
advantage and attract savvy customers.

“The
market has changed,” says Stephen Johnston, a licensed contractor and
owner of Charleston Classic Homes, LLC. “I can be stubborn to change
sometimes. I like what I’ve got. But consumers are getting more
educated, and they are coming to you with so much information from the
Internet. They see different alternatives, and they’re asking ‘Why is
he using this product when there’s something better on the market?’”

Charleston
Classic Homes has completed the first EarthCraft House on the coast.
The high-performance 2,800-square-foot home, now for sale, is located
in the Seaside Plantation neighborhood on James Island.

Since
1999, the EarthCraft House program has helped guide construction of
more than 1,700 energy-efficient and environmentally sensitive homes in
Georgia. The program trains builders in ways to tighten ductwork,
improve insulation, and choose HVAC systems sized appropriately for
each particular home, among other details.

The
EarthCraft House started as a program of the Greater Atlanta Home
Builders Association in partnership with the Southface Energy
Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Atlanta. To qualify, a
builder must be a member of the local homebuilders’ association, join
the EarthCraft House program, and complete a training course.

The
S.C. Energy Office, Greenville Home Builders Association, and
Charleston Trident Home Builders Association have also forged
partnerships to encourage construction of EarthCraft Houses in the
South Carolina upstate and along the coast. The S.C. Energy Office pays
for training classes for builders and inspectors, and also pays for
EarthCraft inspections.

Five
builders in the Charleston area are constructing EarthCraft homes. “In
Charleston, we have a pretty good buzz,” says Jeff Huntley, coordinator
for the EarthCraft program in coastal South Carolina and Georgia.

To
be labeled an EarthCraft House, each structure must be certified by a
trained inspector, meet energy-efficient requirements, and include
other green features. Inspection is based on a flexible point system.
Builders must have a minimum of 150 points to be certified in areas
such as site planning, energy-efficient techniques and equipment,
resource-efficient design and materials, waste management, indoor-air
quality, and water conservation.

“The
EarthCraft program allows me flexibility to work with the options and
get certification,” says Johnston. The cost premium for building an
EarthCraft House was about one and one-half percent over a conventional
one, he says.

The
city of North Charleston and the Noisette Co. are developing a new
neighborhood called Oak Terrace Preserve, where nine builders must
comply with a brand-new construction standard, based closely on
EarthCraft, for the hot-and-humid and hurricane-prone coast. Charleston
Classic Homes is building seven homes in that neighborhood.

“Noisette
is going above and beyond EarthCraft,” says Darbis Briggman, building
director for the city of North Charleston. “We’re there with them. Our
building inspectors are getting continued education, so we’ll have that
knowledge to inspect the homes.”

“This
isn’t just a requirement by do-gooders,” says Art Titus, vice president
of operations for Noisette Co. Sustainable design and construction
“have found real legs in a marketing environment.”

LEEDING GROWTH

Arriving
soon in several regions around the country—the nation’s most
influential green-building rating system is dipping into the huge
home-construction market.

In
2005, the U.S. Green Building Council launched a pilot-test program for
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes
rating system. Eleven programs—a mix of nonprofit organizations, state
energy agencies, and universities—have been chosen to administer the
pilot effort in various regions.

“It’s
better to have local providers administer it because they understand
local needs,” says Taryn Holowka, communications manager for the
council.

Regional
programs are training a select number of builders for LEED for Homes
requirements. The programs will test the pilot system to ensure its
practicality and effectiveness.

The
Southface Energy Institute is the regional LEED for Homes provider in
the Southeast. “Once we test all aspects of the pilot program, we’ll
roll it out in Spring 2007,” says Laura Uhde, a project manager for the
Southface Energy Institute. LEED for Homes is aimed at the top quarter
of the residential market, while the EarthCraft House program is
targeted to the entire cost range of homes.

NEW LEED SYSTEMS

The
U.S. Green Building Council is also working on a preliminary pilot
draft for a rating system called LEED for Neighborhood Development.
This rating system is expected to address entire neighborhoods,
considering land resources, energy and water use, transportation and
mobility, and community design. “You could have an entire neighborhood
be certified, and the homes certified within it,” says Holowka.

Due to popular demand, the LEED program is also spreading into new categories for commercial and institutional structures.

The original LEED rating program, created in 2000, is now called LEED for New Construction.

“People
liked the original program, but some people already had a building and
wanted certification for operations and maintenance,” says Holowka.
This demand led to a proposed rating system, LEED for Existing Building
Operations, now being pilot tested.

Tenants
leasing space in office, retail, and institutional buildings can use
the new LEED for Commercial Interiors rating system. One more rating
system being pilot tested, LEED for Core and Shell, applies to owners
seeking environmentally friendly construction of exteriors and floors
of buildings. “Demand is driving creation of these new rating systems,”
says Holowka.